R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 House of Lords

The defendant had been out drinking for the evening. He went back to the house he had been
staying in and fell asleep on a mattress with a lighted cigarette in his hand. He awoke and saw
that the cigarette had started a small fire. Upon seeing the fire, he then got up and went to
another room and went back to sleep. At his trial, the prosecution did not rely on the acts of the
defendant in falling asleep with a lighted cigarette as being reckless, but relied solely on the
grounds that upon becoming aware of the fire he failed to take steps to put the fire out or call the
fire brigade.

Held:

The defendant had created a dangerous situation and owed a duty to call the fire brigade upon
becoming aware of the fire. He was therefore liable for his omission to do so.

R v Instan

[Omission - manslaughter - distinction between unlawful commission and omission existence

D lived with her aunt, who was suddenly taken ill with gangrene in her leg and became unable
either to feed herself or to call for help. D did not give her any food, nor did she call for medical
help, even though she remained in the house and continued to eat her aunt's food. The aunt's dead
body was found in the house decomposing for about a week.

Held: A duty was imposed upon D to supply the deceased with sufficient food to maintain life,
and that, the death of the aunt having been accelerated by the neglect of such duty.

Lord Coleridge, CJ:

"It would not be correct to say that every moral obligation involves a legal duty; but every legal
duty is founded on a moral obligation. A legal common law duty is nothing else than the
enforcing by law of that which is a moral obligation without legal enforcement."

In this case, as in most cases, the legal duty can be nothing else than the taking upon oneself the
performance of a moral obligation

Guilty of manslaughter.

R v Stone and Dobinson [1977]

The defendants (common law husband and wife) were of low intelligence. One day they were
visited by S's sister Fanny and took her in providing her with a bed but over the following weeks
she became ill. She did not eat properly, developed bed sores, and eventually died of blood
poisoning as a result of infection. The defendants had not obtained any medical assistance for
Fanny although they had known that she was unwell.

The defendants were convicted of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal held that the defendants had been under a common law duty to care for
Fanny. This duty had arisen from their voluntarily assuming the responsibility for looking after
her, knowing that she was relying on them. The defendants' failure to discharge this duty was the
cause of the victim's death.

R v Pittwood (1902)

The defendant was employed as a gatekeeper at a railway crossing. One day he went for lunch
leaving the gate open so that road traffic could cross the railway line. A hay cart crossing the line
was hit by a train. One man was killed, another was seriously injured. Pittwood was convicted of
manslaughter based on his failure to carry out his contractual duty to close the gate when a train
approached.

CAUSATION

R v Smith [1959]

The defendant was involved in a fight with a fellow soldier during which he stabbed the victim,
resulting in the victim being taken to the medical station where he died about one hour later. On
being charged with murder the defendant argued that the chain of causation between the stabbing
and the death had been broken by the way in which the victim had been treated, in particular the
fact that: (a) the victim had been dropped twice whilst being carried to the medical station; (b)
the medical officer, who was dealing with a series of emergencies, did not realise the serious
extent of the wounds; and (c) the treatment he gave him was "thoroughly bad and might well
have affected his chances of recovery". The defendant was convicted of murder and appealed
unsuccessfully. The court held that the defendant's stabbing was the "operating and substantial
cause" of the victim's death. In this case the victim clearly died from loss of blood caused by the
stab wounds inflicted by the defendant.

R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 Court of Appeal

The defendant stabbed an 18 year old girl four times when she refused to have sexual intercourse
with him. She was a practising Jehovah's witness and refused to have a blood transfusion which
would have saved her life. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of
diminished responsibility and appealed arguing that the girl's refusal to accept the blood
transfusion was a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation, alternatively that
Holland was no longer good law.
Held: The defendant's conviction was upheld. The wound was still an operative cause of death
(following R v Smith & R v Jordan) so no novus actus interveniens and Holland was still good
law.

R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App E 152

The defendant stabbed the victim. The victim was taken to hospital where he was given anti-
biotics after showing an allergic reaction to them. He was also given excessive amounts of
intravenous liquids. He died of pneumonia 8 days after admission to hospital. At the time of
death his wounds were starting to heal.

Held:

The victim died of the medical treatment and not the stab wound. The defendant was not liable
for his death.

TRANSFERRED MALICE- 3RD PARTY

R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359

The defendant got into a fight in a pub with another man. He took off his belt and hit the man
with the belt. The belt ricocheted off and hit a woman in the face.

Held: The defendant was liable for the injuries inflicted on the woman despite the fact that he did
not intend to harm her. The mens rea he had to cause harm to the man was transferred to the
woman.

R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2CCR 119

The defendant threw some stones into a crowd of people. He wanted to disperse the crowd. A
stone hit and smashed a window. He was convicted of criminal damage and appealed.

Held: Conviction quashed. His mens rea for an offence against the person could not be
transferred to a property offence as they are entirely different offences.

R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741 Court of Appeal

The appellant tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man took issue with the
appellant's behaviour and challenged him. The appellant hit the old man and pushed him. The
man fell back onto others in the queue including an elderly lady who fell and broke her leg. She
later died. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed contending that the
unlawful act was not directed at the woman.

Held: The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld. There was no requirement that
the unlawful act be directed at the victim.
COINCIDENCE OF AR & MR

Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439

A policeman was directing the defendant to park his car. The defendant accidentally drove onto
the policeman's foot. The policeman shouted at him to get off. The defendant refused to move.
The defendant argued at the time of the actus reus, the driving onto the foot, he lacked the mens
rea of any offence since it was purely accidental. When he formed the mens rea, he lacked the
actus reus as he did nothing.

Held: The driving on to the foot and remaining there was part of a continuing act.

Third Party

R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

The appellant aged 31 had separated from his wife and formed a relationship with a 16 year old
girl. She became pregnant. She finished the relationship when she was six months pregnant
because he was violent towards her. He did not take the break up well and drove to her parents
house armed with a shotgun. He shot the father in the leg and took the mother at gunpoint and
demanded she took him to where her daughter was. When there, after various threatening and
violent behaviour, he then took the girl. He drove off with the mother and daughter. The police
caught up with him and he kicked the mother out of the car and drove off with the daughter. He
took her to a flat and kept her hostage. Armed police followed him. He used the girl as a shield as
he came out of the flat and walked along the balcony. The police saw a figure walking towards
them but could not see who it was. The appellant fired shots at the police and the police returned
fire. The police shot the girl who died. The appellant was convicted of possession of a firearm
with intent to endanger life, kidnap of the mother and daughter, attempted murder on the father
and two police officers and the manslaughter of the girl. He appealed against the manslaughter
conviction on the issue of causation.

Held: Conviction upheld. The firing at the police officers caused them to fire back. In firing back
the police officers were acting in self -defence. His using the girl as a shield caused her death.

R v White [1910] 2 KB 124

The defendant put some poison in his mother's milk with the intention of killing her. The mother
took a few sips and went to sleep and never woke up. Medical reports revealed that she died
from a heart attack and not the poison. The defendant was not liable for her murder as his act of
poisoning the milk was not the cause of death. He was liable for attempt. This case established
the 'but for' test. Ie would the result have occurred but for the actions of the defendant? If the
answer is yes the defendant is not liable.